Sida ay sheegayaan wararka ka imanaya Laascaanood, taliyahiii ciidanka asluubta ee gobolka Sool oo xilligaas gurigiisa ka soo baxay wakhtigii afurkii, islamarkaana saaran gaadhigiisa oo darawalkiisu waday ayaa koox dabley ahi tacshiirad rasaas ah huwiyeen, halkaas oo taliyihii ku geeriyooday halka uu dhaawac ka soo gaadhay darawalkii gaadhiga u waday iyo askari ilaaladiisa ahaa.

Dilkan, ayaan wali la aqoonsan cida geysatay iyo cida ka dambaysay toona, balse sida ay sheegeen masuuliyiinta xukuumada ee gobolka Sool ayaa ku waramay, inaan hada cid loo hayn arrinkaa dilka laakiin dad loo qabqabtay arrinkaas taliyaha Asluubta ee Sool, balse baadhitaan dhacdadaasi ku saabsan ay ciidamada amaanku ku guda jiraan

Gudoomiyaha gobolka Sool C/llaahi Jaamac Diiriye oo xalay dilka taliyaha jeelka ee Laascaanood loogu geystay, ka dib Haatuf uga waramay khadka Tilifoonka waxna kaga weydiinay dilkaas, isaga oo ka hadlaya waxa u yidhi“ Waxa weeye Taliyaha markii uu soo afuray ee uu gurigiisa ka soo baxay ayaa taliyaha tacshiirad rasaas ah lala beegsaday, isaga oo ay la socdaan darwalkiisa oo gadhiga waday iyo askari Ilaaladiisa ahaa, arinkaana dad loo qabqabatay baa jira laakiin baadhitaan baa socda, waana la baadhayaa warka xaqiiqda ahna waxaad la helayaa aroorta (maanta)”

Gudoomiyaha mar aanu weydiinay waxa uga qorshaysan dilalka soo noqnoqonaya ee lagu bartilmaameedsanayo saraakiisha ciidamada iyo masuuliyiinta, waxa uu yidhi “ waxanu hada qorshaheeda wadnay sidii aanu u xoojin lahayn nabadgalyada gobolka, islamarkaana aad u adkayn lahayn amaanka”

Mar uu ka hadlayay badhasaabka Sool dableyda dilka toogashada ah ku khaarajiyey taliyaha Jeelka Marxuum Cabdi Ciise Nuur tiradooda waxa uu sheegay inay ahaayeen lix nin meel u dhaw halka ay taliyaha ku dileen uu gaadhi u taagnaa, meesha lagu dilay dilay taliyahana waxa la yidhaahdaa Geeda-qarsi.

Haatuf

Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we’ve brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We’ve closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.

As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.

By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq’s future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.

We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.

In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.

Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.

What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.

For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.

Our promise to them — to each woman or man who has donned our colors — is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.

Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation’s history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Imam Ahmad Guray (1506-43), belong to the current Abrain sub-clan of Mohamed Case under Gadabursi tribe – and the locataion of his kindom Adal- Saylac is one of the major evidences to proof his true identity;

THE GADABURSI TREATY (Concluded with the British authority, in December 11, 1884 ) We, the undersigned Elders of the Gadabursi tribe, are desirous of entire into an agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of the order, and other good and sufficient reasons.

Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follow: Article I The Gadabursi tribe do hereby declare that they are pledged and found never to cede, sell, mortgage or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them or being under their control. Article II All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade all ports and places in the territories of the Gadabursi tribe. Article III All British subjects, residing in, or visiting, the territories of the Gadabursi tribe, shall enjoy perfect safety and protection and shall be titled to travel all over the said limits under the safe conduct of the elders of the tribe. Article IV The traffic in slaves throughout the territories of the Gadabursi tribe shall cease for ever and the Commander of Her Majesty’s vessels, or any other British Officer duly authorised, shall have the power requiring the surrender of any slave, and of supporting the demand by force of arms by land and sea. Article V The British Government shall have the power to appoint an agent or agents to reside in the territories of the Gadabursi tribe, and every such agent shall be treated with respect and consideration and be entitled to have for his protection such guard as the British Government deem sufficient. The above written treaty shall come into force and have effect from the date of signing this agreement. In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honorable bond, Iama Roblay, Mohamed Ali Balol, Ilmee Warfah (Ughaz’ son), Rogay Khairi, Waberi Idlay, Roblay, Warfah, Doaly Dilbad, Amir Egal, Gaylay Shirwah, Warfah Roblay, Yunus Boh and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all in the presence of witnesses affix their signatures, marks, or seals at Zaila on the eleventh day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, corresponding with the twenty-fifth of Safar one thousand three hundred and two. (Signed) F. M. Hunter, Major, Bombay Staff Corps Signed in presence: (Signed) Percy Downes, First Grade Officer, I. M. (Signed) Dufferin, Viceroy and Governor General of India This agreement was ratified by the Governor General of India in Council at Calcutta on the twentieth February one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five. (Signed) H. M. Durand, Officiating Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department Fort William, The 25th February 1885

 The Gadabursi kings: The role of Imam Said Samaroon in Dir History

The Dir history in Iman Samaroon’s era- Submitted By:Huurshe Mahe Dir! Mahe Dir! Tariikhda Direed ma qormeyso, mana soconayso Madanluug Dir laantii. Imam Samaroon Said alle ha unaxriisto 1432 AD ,when the Amhara cruseaders conquered Somali, Iman Said was the muslim leader who led the Madanluug Dir and when the imam was later fighting in the Westren flank of the Guurey army he was injured at dardarley. The name Gadabuursi was given to his descendents at the last critical moment before he made a final stand to the Amhara at the mandaluug ancestral homeland of Amuud which was destroyed 1459 A.D by the Xabasha invaders over 50,000 homes where discovered by archeologists recently and the place was leveled with the ground 10, 000 thousands perished. The Magadle Dir was completely annilated except for the 10,000 or saw that survive in Cerigaabo. The Madoobe Dir installed a Madaxweyn Dir dynasty The Wardiiq who was the ruling remenants of the Madaxeyn Dir in the north. Madigan, Gurgure and the Barsuug Dir fled west and were encirled by the Oromos- Many assimilated and the union formed a half cast Jarso. The Isaaq Dir reconstituted as Maxamed (Axmed Xiniftire) new Habar alliences formed the Nacadoor,Mikidoor,Nabidoor and the Idoor all disappeared. The name Gaada Biirsay means The one who collected the army or “chests” the name refered to the desparate effort of imam Samaroon Said to collect and muster the power of his kinsman against the infidels. Gaado means shafka ama xabadka (gaada ha i saarin oo kale. Gaadsan the westren Dir ‘s name means the one with the army or good chest litraray. The Gadabuursi latter suffered a davastating defeat and actually the present day Amuud which has a old cementary called Lafaruug was destroyed by the Amhara King. Also note it was this period that the King Shihad a Diin buried in Zailac Island was killed. The Gudabuursi Dir and Modoobe Dir never recovered from these davastating blows. The Madaluug in Southren Somalia and the Biyamaal as well as The Fiq’s Suure all left at this point their Southren movement from Amuud region in the 1600?s during the Axmed Guurey era. The Suure Dir who are, as a matter of fact, still in Hauda region and whom refer them self’s as Fiqi’s where the Her or sheikh associated with Awbarre/Buube/ Yusuf Barkad kowniin students who entered Mudug region at the time when the Ajuuran ruled at mereg and some served as Imams under one malakh Gareenow Xaasey. The Suure Fiqi’s, Biyamaal, Guure, and the Badimaal all entered the south by 1700. The Biyamal claim to have entered the Banadir area, a name meaning beynka direeb, in 1700?s. The Gurgure/Akisho cluster and reminders of Madaxweyn Dir conquered the Dira Dhabe ” meeshu Diri Dhabe” ama waranka ka taagay. The Gurgure which is not their real name (Gurgure means trader hence the word Gorgortan – to bargain) or the trader became oromized after the great oromo invasions many Dir became lost or dispered. Today in the south and westren Somali you will find a large cluster of Mandaluug Dir who live with the Southren Suure, Biyamal, and Gadsan

 The History of the Dir People.

In the 1500?s several things happened in the early struggles of Axmed Gran with the Ethiopia Christian Imperialists who where sprearheading attacks into Muslim lands.

According to Fatuh Al Habash: 1) Ahamed Gran came into the hinterlands of North Westren Somalia in order to recruit fighters amoung the Mandaluug Dir, Mahomed Xiniftire Or Mahe Dir and Madoobe.

a)

The fatuh al Habash mentions the Habar Magadle (Maha Dir) by name as one group which Gureey try to draw into his camp.Nevertheless, the Habar Awal and Habar Yonis joined the Gurey jihaad.

For Example, the Makaahil of the Habar Awal was the son of an Amhara princesse who was broght back to Somali by a Habar Awal worrior. The Amhara princes asked her captor one favour which to name the first son. After she bore the son she named him Makahil “Micheal” the angel. As a matter of fact many Mahe Dir like the Habar xabuush or Habar Jeclo were also named in such a case.

According to the Fatuh Al Habash, “the fierce and rebellious Isaaq, Issas, and Afar clans who lived close to these groups and was know as “Oda Cali” caused Guurey many problems because as soon as the attacked the Habash enemies and gained some booty they would return to their territorie this angered Imam Ahmed who wanted a displined army. Ali and Mataan a brothers in-law of Gurey and Ahmed Nuur a knephew or Gurey, who later married Gurey’s wife Batiyo Delwambero(Dawmbiro). It is interesting to not The name Dalwambero. It is no accidental it sounds like Dombiro. The Darood Somali clans under Imam Ahmed Gurey where led by another Garad who was know as Guuray and he was married to Delwambera’s sister Mardiya. It was at this period that the Madaxweyn Dir enlisted the Yabbare, Geeri, and Harla, also it was at this juncture of history that the Darood confuse history.

1) The Darood confuse to distinct persons. Namely, Imam Ahmed Ibrahim Ghazali Aragsame the proper Ahmed Guray and the Garad Gurey who led the Darood armies. After centuries they think that their Garad whose name is mentioned in the Fatuh Al Habash as Guray is the same as Ahmed Gurey. So the legacy of Axmed Gurey is not limited to the Gababuursi or Ciisa or Gurgure but as touched all Somalis.

Sheeikh Cabdul Qadir al Jeylaani (Jilani’s Biography) Patron Sain of the Somalis.

Tariikhdii iyo nolashii Sheekh Cabdulqadir Jaylani o ah Sheekh Dariiqad Qadiriyada of Somali iyo Geeska Africa aad ugu Faatay. Sheekh aweys iyo sheekhyo badan oo somali ah ayaa Sheekhan oo reer baqdad ah raacsanaa. Dariiqoyinka Sufism ka ah baryahan waxay far kulul isku hayaan ardayda ka soo labatay Sacuudiga iyo Kaliijka. Maxay kula tahay ? Dariiqoyinka kale Salixiya iyo Darqawiya, Ahmadiyya Somali way ka jiri jireen. ——————————————————————————– The Shaikh’s Life in Baghdaad Through the mists of legend surrounding the life of Shaikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, it is possible to discern the outlines of the following biographical sketch: In A.H. 488, at the age of eighteen, he left his native province to become a student in the great capital city of Baghdaad, the hub of political, commercial and cultural activity, and the center of religious learning in the world of Islaam. After studying traditional sciences under such teachers as the prominent Hanbalii jurist [faqiih], Abuu Sa’d ‘Alii al-Mukharrimii, he encountered a more spiritually oriented instructor in the saintly person of Abu’l-Khair Hammaad ad-Dabbaas. Then, instead of embarking on his own professorial career, he abandoned the city and spent twenty-five years as a wanderer in the desert regions of ‘Iraaq. He was over fifty years old by the time he returned to Baghdaad, in A.H. 521/1127 C.E., and began to preach in public. His hearers were profoundly affected by the style and content of his lectures, and his reputation grew and spread through all sections of society. He moved into the school [madrasa] belonging to his old teacher al-Mukharrimii, but the premises eventually proved inadequate. In A.H. 528, pious donations were applied to the construction of a residence and guesthouse [ribaat], capable of housing the Shaikh and his large family, as well as providing accommodation for his pupils and space for those who came from far and wide to attend his regular sessions [majaalis]. He lived to a ripe old age, and continued his work until his very last breath, as we know from the accounts of his final moments recorded in the Addendum to Revelations of the Unseen. In the words of Shaikh Muzaffer Ozak Efendi: “The venerable ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani passed on to the Realm of Divine Beauty in A.H. 561/1166 C.E., and his blessed mausoleum in Baghdaad is still a place of pious visitation. He is noted for his extraordinary spiritual experiences and exploits, as well as his memorable sayings and wise teachings. It is rightly said of him that ‘he was born in love, grew in perfection, and met his Lord in the perfection of love.’ May the All-Glorious Lord bring us in contact with his lofty spiritual influence!”

(Posted by guest: Warsame Awad)

Boqortoyad Awdal Ancient Gadabuursi civilization Gurrey

As the direct descendants of Awdal (formerly Adal Empire) inhabitants, the Samaroon people, well known as Gadabursi, are the citizens of Awdal. Despite the so-called SomaliLand Administration who wants to govern the North Regions of the former Somalia, the people of Awdal and the local authority are commited to the creation of an autonomous State of Awdal, the Northern region of the former Somalia. The people of Awdal are well known not only by the bravery, discipline and courage of their ancestors who were the rulers and the leaders of the entire East Africa, centuries ago but also, by their civilization and the consciousness of the existence of their Nation. In fact, the name Gadabursi derives from “Gado Birsi”, which means expansion of land. From the 13th century up to about the 19th century, before the arrival of the British Empire, the people of Awdal were true freedom fighters. During that period of time, they have been through many conflicts and wars against the Abyssinians, the Galas and they even fought against the Portuguese. Without going into the detail of the history of that period of time in this section, let me briefly highlight one of the well-known freedom fighter who left his mark; Ahmed Guray.

Born in 1506 at Hubat located between Harar and Galdaysa, Ahmed Guray lost his father when he was still a child and, an employee of his father adopted him, treating him as his only son. Many years later, Ahmed married Baati, the daughter of the king of Zeyla, named Mahfud. With the help that he received from king Mahfud, Ahmed Guray formed a strong army to fight against the Kingdom of Harar and defeated King Abubakar of Harar. The first battle of Ahmed Guray was in fact a long waited conflict in order to get back the Region of Harar and to free the Somali people living in that region. After having defeated the throne, the brother of Ahmed Guray had replaced King Abubakar. Indeed, the inhuman ruling of that Kingdom has been changed and the people got back the joy of the live and freedom with justice. During the following years, Ahmed Guray prepared his troop to a more bigger conflict, once again to fight for the freedom of the people of the region. This time Ahmed had to confront the Abyssinians, in order to bring down their taxation ruling and their discriminatory policy against non-Abyssinian. He formed a coalition of Somali (mainly Gadabursi) and Afar people, whom were the most discriminated that the Kingdom of Abyssinia was forcing and imposing unjustifiable taxation rules. In 1535, Ahmed Guray conquered 3/4 of the Abyssinians land and, at the age of 35, he became the Emperor of Abyssinia. At that time Ahmed came back to Harar, where he established his Kingdom and he was nominated the Emperor of Abyssinians, Somali and Afar people and, he created a centralised government and putted in place regional states.

As the history teaches us the reality of the past, we can find among the Samaroon people, as we do in other Somali ethics, a lot of great individuals who stood up for the freedom of their people and the dignity of their nation. The Gadabursi are civilized people, who are conform with the practices of their patriotism, respect the environment of their land and follow the changes relative to the time. Saying that, the Samaroon people are well known by their dedication to the education and business. Let me remind you that in the 1800 when the British Empire came to the East Cost of Somalia, they found civilized people who were doing business the way the western countries were doing it, from coast to coast and, from China to Central Africa. Indeed, that people were Samaroon, our ancestors. Soon, the British government sent its own business people in mission to that land, in order to understand and interact with the local people. Dear readers, let me refer you to the *Gadabursy Treaty that the authority based in Zeyla, Awdal at that time, signed with the British Empire, in 1884. In fact, this treaty tells us that the Gadabursi people were not dominated easily by the British but rather, they created a kind of business partnership with the British authority.

Nowadays, a priority for the people and the local authority of Awdal is strengthening the security situation of the northern regions of the former Somalia. Actually, while this people is working hard to keep the peace alive, improve prosperity and revitalise the socio-economic of the region by creating micro-economic business, the so-called SomaliLand Administration is engaged to disrupt the social live of the entire region. In fact, almost a decade after the collapse of the former centralised Somali State, Awdal has become a haven of peace in a conflict ridden the Horn of Africa. Unfortunately, this reality has yet to be recognized by the international communities, wrongly informed by an international media that focuses entirely on the inter-clan militia violence in central and southern areas of Somalia.

Somalia

Emergence of Adal

In addition to southward migration, a second factor in Somali history from the fifteenth century onward was the emergence of centralized state systems. The most important of these in medieval times was Adal, whose influence at the height of its power and prosperity in the sixteenth century extended from Saylac, the capital, through the fertile valleys of the Jijiga and the Harer plateau to the Ethiopian highlands. Adal’s fame derived not only from the prosperity and cosmopolitanism of its people, its architectural sophistication, graceful mosques, and high learning, but also from its conflicts with the expansionist Ethiopians. For hundreds of years before the fifteenth century, goodwill had existed between the dominant new civilization of Islam and the Christian neguses of Ethiopia. One tradition holds that Muhammad blessed Ethiopia and enjoined his disciples from ever conducting jihad (holy war) against the Christian kingdom in gratitude for the protection early Muslims had received from the Ethiopian negus. Whereas Muslim armies rapidly overran the more powerful empires of Persia and Byzantium soon after the birth of Islam, there was no jihad against Christian Ethiopia for centuries. The forbidding Ethiopian terrain of deep gorges, sharp escarpments, and perpendicular massifs that rise more than 4,500 meters also discouraged the Muslims from attempting a campaign of conquest against so inaccessible a kingdom.

Muslim-Christian relations soured during the reign of the aggressive Negus Yeshaq (ruled 1414-29). Forces of his rapidly expanding empire descended from the highlands to despoil Muslim settlements in the valley east of the ancient city of Harer. Having branded the Muslims “enemies of the Lord,” Yeshaq invaded the Muslim Kingdom of Ifat in 1415. He crushed the armies of Ifat and put to flight in the wastes along the Gulf of Tadjoura (in present-day Djibouti) Ifat’s king Saad ad Din. Yeshaq followed Saad ad Din to the island off the coast of Saylac (which still bears his name), where the Muslim king was killed. Yeshaq compelled the Muslims to offer tribute, and also ordered his singers to compose a gloating hymn of thanksgiving for his victory. In the hymn’s lyrics, the word Somali appears for the first time in written record.

By the sixteenth century, the Muslims had recovered sufficiently to break through from the east into the central Ethiopian highlands. Led by the charismatic Imam Ahmad Guray (1506-43), of the current Abrain clan of the Gadabursi the Muslims poured into Ethiopia, using scorched-earth tactics that decimated the population of the country. A Portuguese expedition led by Pedro da Gama, a son of Vasco da Gama who was looking for the Prester John of medieval European folklore–a Christian, African monarch of vast dominions–arrived from the sea and saved Ethiopia. The joint Portuguese-Ethiopian force used cannon to route the Muslims, whose imam died on the battlefield.

Awdal Empire of 700 AD –>1900 AD

Right after the Prophet’s (PBUH) death, an influx of religious teachers and merchants from the middle east, Oman and Yemen poured into Awdal and started doing business with the Empire. The Empire expanded. And, at the height of its power and prosperity in the sixteenth century, Awdal under the leadership of Sheikh Ahmed Guray, extended from Zeila to as far west as the city of Akxum; what is now western Ethiopia.

Even though the colonial anthropologist I.M. Lewis intentionally gives a distorted image of Skeikh Ahmad Guray’s origin, calling him the issue of a Coptic priest and a Muslim harlot, the Sheikh is from the Abrain sub-clan of the Maxaad Casse’ clan of The Gadabursi. His off springs still live in the city of Zeila where he was the king of.

There are many writings in several different languages about this long and peaceful era, but I chose to include some excerpts from the US Military Strategic Handbook of Somalia written after the Black Hawk down.
The military wanted to learn everything about Somalia and be prepared for future occurrences if any. So they offered grants to ten US universities to study Somalia from the beginning to the present, (everything there is to know ).
And the best beginning these researchers found was Awdal, where they say was the first place the word “Somali” was ever spoken. That alone emphasizes Awdal’s importance in the history of the Horn.

The Dir history in Iman Samaroons era- meaning of Gadabursi

Imam Samaroon Said alle ha unaxriisto 1432 AD when the Amhara cruseaders conquered Somali, Iman Said was the muslim leader who led the Madanluug Dir and when the imam was later fighting in the Westren flank of the Guurey army he was injured at dardarley. The name Gadabuursi was given to his descendents at the last critical moment before he made a final stand to the Amhara at the mandaluug ancestral homeland of Amuud which was destroyed over 50,000 homes where excuvated recently and the place was leveled with the ground 10, 000 thousands perished. The Magadle Dir was completely annilated except for the 10,000 or saw that survive in Cerigaabo. The Madoobe Dir installed a Madaxweyn Dir dynasty The Wardiiq who was the ruling remenants of the Madaxeyn. Madigan, Gurgure and the Barsuug Dir fled west and were encirled by the Oromos- Many assimilated and the union formed a half cast Jarso. The Isaaq Dir reconstituted as Maxamed (Axmed Xiniftire) new Habar alliences formed the Nacadoor,Mikidoor,Nabidoor and the Idoor all disappeared. The name Gaada Biirsay means The one who collected the army or “chests” the name refered to the desparate effort of imam Samaroon Said to collect and muster the power of his kinsman against the infidels. Gaado means shafka ama xabadka (gaada ha i saarin oo kale. Gaadsan the westren Dir ‘s name means the one with the army or good chest litraray. The Gadabuursi latter suffered a davastating defeat and actually the present day Amuud which has a old cementary called Lafaruug was destroyed by the Amhara King. Also note it was this period that the King Shihad a Diin buried in Zailac Island was killed. The Gudabuursi Dir and Modoobe Dir never recovered from these davastating blows. The Madaluug in Southren Somalia and the Biyamaal as well as The Fiq’s Suure all point their Southren movement from Amuud region in the 1600?s during the Axmed Guurey era. The Suure Dir who are as a matter of fact still in Hauda region and whom refer them self’s as Fiqi’s where the Her or sheikh associated with Awbarre/Buube/ Yusuf Barkad kowniin students who entered Mudug region at the time when the Ajuuran ruled at mereg and some served as Imams under one malakh Gareenow Xaasey. The Suure Fiqi’s, Biyamaal, Guure, and the Badimaal all entered the south. The Biyamal claim to have entered the Banadir area, a name meaning beynka direeb, in 1700?s. The Gurgure/Akisho cluster and reminders of Madaxweyn Dir conquered the Dira Dhabe ” meeshu Diri Dhabe” ama waranka ka taagay. The Gurgure which is not their real name (Gurgure means trader hence the word Gorgortan – to bargain)

Madaxweyne Rayaale wuxuu kulankani oo sii qorshaysna ku wehelinaayey Wasiirkiisii Macdanta iyo Biyaha Cismaan Sheekh Maxamed oo isaga ku wehelinaayey safarkiisa, Idaacaddu waxay sheegtay in Ra’isal wasaaraha Ethiopia Sanawi uu u ammaanay Madaxweyne Rayaale sidii uu u wareejiyey xilkii madaxtinimada Somaliland dhawaan isla markaana wuxuu ku tilmaamay Madaxweyne Rayaale inuu saaxiib weyn la ahaa dalka Ethiopia.

Idaacaddu waxay intaasi ku dartay inuu maanta la kulmi doono Madaxweynahu saraakiil kale oo ka tirsan dawladda Ethiopia oo ay ka mid yahiin wasiirka arrimaha dibadda dalka Ethiopia Zium Masfin iyo Wasiiru dawlaha arrimaha dibadda dalka Ethiopia Dr. Tekedu Aleme, Idaacaddu faah faahin kama ay bixin arrimaha lagu soo qaaday wada hadalka dhex maray Melez Sanawi iyo Madaxweynahii hore ee Somaliland Daahir Rayaale Kaahin aan ahayn in nuxurka wada hadalku ahaa mahad naq uu Ra’isal wasaarahu faraayey Madaxweynahii hore ee Somaliland.

Madaxweyne Rayaale ayaa todobaadkii hore wuxuu sidoo kale socdaal ku soo maray dalka Jibouti oo uu muddo seddex maalmood ah ku sugna ma cadda inuu Madaxweyne Rayaale la kulmay Madaxweynaha Jibouti.

Xidhiidhka Dawladda Cusub ee Somaliland ee Axmed Siilaanyo iyo Dalka Ethiopia oo la daris ah ayaa maalmahii ugu danbeeyey waxaa soo dhex gallay guux siyaasadeed wallow Wasiir ku xigeenka arrimaha dibadda Somaliland Mud. Maxamed Yoonis Cawaale maanta mar qaar ka mid ah warbaahinta uu la hadlay uu si taxadarleh u sheegay inaanay haba yaraate jirin in xidhiidhka labada dhinac uu xumaaday, wallow Wasiir ku xigeenku uu ku eedeeyey Dawladdii Madaxweyne Rayaale inay u gudbisay Dawladda Ethiopia war khaldan oo lagu xidhiidhinaayo xubno wasiiradda Xukuumadda Siilaanyo ka tirsan inaanay xidhiidh la leeyahiin kooxo xagjir ah.

TV Somaliland Europe -

Hargeysa (Jam)- Allaah ha u naxariistee Mujaahid Cabdillaahi Askar oo ahaa halyey adag oo ka mid ahaa saraakiishii ugu cadcadaa ururkii SNM ee Somaliland xorreeyey iyo ciidankii xooggii Soomaaliya, ayaa shalay galab si heer qaran ah loogu aasay xabaalaha Boqol-jire ee magaalada Hargeysa, kadib markii uu isla shalay gelinkii hore ku geeriyooday gurigiisa oo ku yaala degmada 26-ka june.

Aaska marxuunka waxa ka qaybgalay Madaxweynaha Somaliland Md. Axmed Maxamed Siilaanyo, saraakiishii iyo mujaahidiinta ururkii SNM, shirguddoonka golayaasha Baarlamanka, wasiiro, masuuliyiin axsaabta qaranka iyo dadweyne aad u tiro badan.
Masuuliyiinta iyo saraakiisha aaska ka qaybgalay ee aqoonta u lahaa marxuunka, ayaa ka warramay taariikh-nololeedkii iyo shaqsiyaddii Muj. Cabdillaahi Askar oo ku tilmaameen inuu ahaa nin halyey dalka iyo dadkiisaba jecel oo naftiisa u huray.
Madaxweynaha Somaliland Md. Axmed Maxamed Maxamuud (Siilaanyo) oo ka qaybgalay aaska marxuunka, ayaa ka sheekeeyey shakhsiyadii Cabdillaahi Askar oo ay in badan ku wada jireen halgankii ururkii SNM.
Ugu horreyn, Madaxweynuhu waxa uu tacsi u diray qoyskii, qaraabadii, ehelkii iyo shacabka Somaliland ee uu ka baxay Marxuunku.
Madaxweyne Siilaanyo oo ka hadlayey taariikhdii marxuum Cabdillaahi Askar waxa uu yidhi; “Cabdillaahi Askar waxa uu ahaa shakhsi halgamaa aad u wayn ah, waanu soo wadagalnay halgankii dheeraa ee dalka lagu xorreeyey, muddo dheerna wuxuu ahaa madaxda iyo hoggaanka ciidammada, wuxuu ahaa nin aad waddani u ah oo qiiro iyo xammaasad badan, dadkiisa iyo dalkiisa jecel oo wax allaale wuxuu ka hagran jiray aanay jirin, wuxuu ahaa ninkii naftiisa u huray ee halkan [Hargeysa] u soo baxay ee markii dambe Allaah ha naxariistee Ibraahim Koodbuur iyo rag kale ka saareen.”
Waxa kale oo aqoontii ay marxuunka u lahaayeen ka warramay saraakiishii SNM oo uu ka mid yahay Guddoomiyaha xisbiga KULMIYE Muuse Biixi Cabdi, Ibraahim Dhegoweyne, Maxamed Kaahin iyo dad kaloo ay ka mid yihiin abwaan Maxamed Xaashi Dhamac (Garariye), Guddoomiyayaasha Golayaasha Wakiillada iyo Guurtida, waxaanay dhammaantood isku raaceen in marxuunku ahaa shakhsiyad wanaagsan oo ku sifaysnaa muwaadin dhab ah oo dadka iyo dalka jecel.
Marxuun Cabdillaahi Askar waxa uu ka mid ahaa jannanadii ugu sarreeyey ciidammadii Soomaaliya ka hor intii aannu ku biirin SNM oo uu u qaabilsanaa hawlgallada gudaha, iyadoo markii dambe lagu qabtay magaalada Hargeysa oo lagu xidhay halka loo yaqaan Miiska Saraakiisha, hase ahaatee waxa dil loo qoondeeyey ka badbaadiyey koox mujaahidiin ah oo uu hoggaaminayey Allaah ha naxariistee mujaahidkii weynaa ee Ibraahim Kood-buur.

Source: Jamhuuriya Online

As recounted by historian James J. Sheehan in his excellent book,Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The countries possessing the greatest capability to employ force to further their political aims lost their enthusiasm for doing so. Over time, they turned away from war.
Of course, there were lingering exceptions. The United States and Israel have remained adamant in their determination to harness war and demonstrate its utility.
Europe, however, is another matter. By the dawn of this century, Europeans had long since lost their stomach for battle. The change was not simply political. It was profoundly cultural.
The cradle of Western civilization — and incubator of ambitions that drenched the contemporary age in blood — had become thoroughly debellicized. As a consequence, however willing they are to spend money updating military museums or maintaining war memorials, present-day Europeans have become altogether stingy when it comes to raising and equipping fighting armies.
This pacification of Europe is quite likely to prove irreversible. Yet even if reigniting an affinity for war among the people of, say, Germany and France were possible, why would any sane person even try? Why not allow Europeans to busy themselves with their never-ending European unification project? It keeps them out of mischief.
Washington, however, finds it difficult to accept this extraordinary gift — purchased in part through the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers — of a Europe that has laid down its arms. Instead, successive U.S. administrations have pushed, prodded, cajoled, and browbeaten European democracies to shoulder a heavier share of responsibility for maintaining world order and enforcing liberal norms.
In concrete terms, this attempt to reignite Europe’s martial spirit has found expression in the attempted conversion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) from a defensive alliance into an instrument of power projection. Washington’s aim is this: take a Cold War-inspired organization designed to keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in, and transform it into a post-Cold War arrangement in which Europe will help underwrite American globalism without, of course, being permitted any notable say regarding U.S. policy.
The allies have not proven accommodating. True, NATO has gotten bigger — there were 16 member states 20 years ago, 28 today — but growth has come at the expense of cohesion. Once an organization that possessed considerable capability, NATO today resembles a club that just about anyone can join, including, most recently, such military powerhouses as Albania and Croatia.
A club with lax entrance requirements is unlikely to inspire respect even from its own members. NATO’s agreed-upon target for defense spending, for example, is a paltry 2 percent of GDP. Last year, aside from the United States, exactly four member states met that goal.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe — today, as always, a U.S. general — still presides in splendor over NATO’s military headquarters in Belgium. Yet SACEUR wields about as much clout as the president of a decent-sized university. He is not a commander. He is a supplicant. SACEUR’s impressive title, a relic of World War II, is merely an honorific, akin to calling Elvis the King or Bruce the Boss.
Afghanistan provides the most important leading indicator of where Washington’s attempt to nurture a muscle-flexing new NATO is heading; it is the decisive test of whether the alliance can handle large-scale, out-of-area missions. And after eight years, the results have been disappointing. Complaints about the courage and commitment of NATO soldiers have been few. Complaints about their limited numbers and the inadequacy of their kit have been legion. An immense complicating factor has been the tendency of national governments to impose restrictions on where and how their forces are permitted to operate. The result has been dysfunction.

Source: Antiwar.Com
ANDREW J. BACEVICH

XUSEN CEELABE FAAHIYE
DIRIYE CAWALE HANDE
XALIMA IMAN MAXAMED
NIMCO SACID TUKALE 
AYAN SACID TUKALE
AHMED SACID TUKALE
MAHDI SACID TUKALE
IBRAHIN MUSE HAMI
SACIDO CEYLABE  FAHIYE
FARDOWSA AADAN
XAWA AADAN
NUURO GUULEED
CABDIFATAX XUSEN CEYLABE
SUBAN XAJI CALI
CARAFA XAJI CALI
ANISO XUSEN CEYLABE
SHINE XUSEN CEYLABE
CABDIRISAQ XUSEN CEYLABE
CABDIWALI XUSEN CEYLABE
SAMSAM XUSEN CEYLABE
SAMATAR XUSEN CEYLABE
XASAN MUUMIN CAARE
FEYSAL MUUSE MAXAMED
FATXIYO MUMIN CAARE
DR CUMAR MAXAMED NUR
SAADO CALI
MUKHTAR  CIGE  AAMIN
NUUR YASSIN ISMACIL NIRIG
XARBI YUUSUF CUSMAN
ZAKARIYE XUSEN
HAMSE MAXAMUD CABAS
XASAN MAXAMED XASAN XAREED
 HINDA IBRAHIN NUUR
MAXAMUD CABDI JAAMAC
JAAMAC YOONIS CABDI
HINDA IBRAHIM NUR
CABDALE  KAAHIYE
MAHAMED MUSE OCTOBER
FOZIA CISMAN
UBAX AADAN WARSAME

 In 1991, after the Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush proclaimed, “The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula.” But the specter he and the Pentagon had feared for over a decade, of a devastating shrinkage of U.S. influence following a military withdrawal, had always been a phantom.

That “specter,” of defeat in Vietnam, proved in time to be as harmless as a Halloween ghost. Asia did not tip as predicted toward the Communist camp after America withdrew; Asia tipped decisively the other way. And it did so precisely because America’s troops stopped fighting where they did not belong, leaving space for other Americans to come in and do more constructive forms of business.

We face a different specter today: the sibling specter of escalation and imperial overstretch. The true Vietnam syndrome is our country’s proven pathological history of involvement in unnecessary and unwinnable wars.

These sibling Vietnam specters, one of withdrawal and one of escalation, haunt different sectors of our bitterly divided country. The first haunts those who fear America might lose control of the world. They are haunted also by memories of domestic antiwar opposition, as in Oliver North’s revealing complaint to Congress that the Vietnam War was lost, not in Asia, but in the streets of this country. (This complaint recently surfaced in ugly partisan form when the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, enraged at Sen. John Kerry’s opposition to the war in Vietnam, smeared his honorable service there.)

The second Vietnam specter haunts those who fear America is becoming trapped again by delusional dreams of domination. The immediate danger in Iraq, unfortunately, is not that we will pull out our troops and come home. On the contrary, it is that we will commit more and more troops, incur greater and greater casualties on all sides, and quite possibly expand the war beyond Iraq’s frontiers, before we finally reach the relatively happy and simple outcome of withdrawal.

Last April U.S. Marines attacked the city of Fallujah with tanks and helicopter gunships, in reprisal for the killing of four American contract workers. According to Iraqi doctors, at least 600 people were killed, mostly civilians. This was more than the total number of civilians killed by the Iraqi insurgents in the previous year. As John Pilger noted, the slaughter could be compared to the S.S. killing of 600 French civilians in the village of Oradour, in revenge for the kidnapping of a German officer.

Such brutal acts are the inevitable consequence of sustained offensive occupation in a foreign land, where troops at war are not welcomed. The assaults are not easily forgotten. Given any publicity, they are far less likely to cow opponents than to mobilize them. This is why, for almost 50 years, offensive occupations have led to defeat, not victory, for the invader.

One would have thought therefore that America might admit its error last May in Fallujah and take steps to make sure it is not repeated. This is what the British in India did after the notorious Amritsar massacre of 1919, which killed 379 civilians and galvanized Indian resistance into Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement.

But America is not about to reconsider. After backing off last May, the current U.S. plan is to soften up Fallujah with heavy air strikes before Marines and Iraqi troops go back in. This policy is supported by both the presidential candidates. Kerry, in the first presidential debate, said that Bush was wrong to “back off of Fallujah and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists.”

Meanwhile the Christian Science Monitor recently reported that the result of the recent intense bombardment of Fallujah is “new fear that is tearing at family social fabric, which Iraqis say has only hardened attitudes against American efforts.” One Iraqi mother whose family decided to flee Fallujah after witnessing civilian casualties said, “What did this teach us about the Americans? First we thought the Americans came to liberate our country, but now our conclusion is the opposite. We know they came to destroy our country.”

Kerry has said he wants more troops in Iraq (which of course will mean more casualties). He has called for adding 40,000 troops, while Sen. John McCain wants 90,000. However, these figures may not begin to match what the Bush administration has in mind if it remains in the White House.

Predicting a war against Islamic terrorism that “will continue for several years,” the private research group Stratfor recently reported that “there will be a massive increase in the size of the U.S. military in 2005.” It foresaw that the occupation and “pacification” of several countries — not just Iraq — will require the presence of ground forces “far in excess of those needed to defeat an enemy armored force.”

Such grandiose visions are reinforced by books like Niall Ferguson’s “Colossus.” Ferguson argues that “imposing democracy on all the world’s ‘rogue states’ would not push the defense budget much above 5 percent of GDP” and “would pay a long-run dividend.” Failure to step up to this challenge, he warns, could lead to imperial decline “from within.”

Not mentioned by Stratfor, but certainly pertinent, are U.S. plans for permanent bases in Iraq. The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy document of 2002 announced that “the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia.” There was much press alarm about the uncertain political future of Saudi Arabia, then the home of America’s largest bases in the Gulf. Journalist Jay Bookman predicted that “having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.”

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org, has since identified no less than 12 “enduring bases” being constructed by the U.S. Army in Iraq (two less than the 14 reported by the Chicago Tribune last March). Those bases will have to be both manned and defended, while some are eager to use them for still wider wars. (Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, told Americans to be ready for a “long war in the Middle East and Central Asia.”)

Stratfor, in talking of multiple occupations, recognized that the Army cannot be seriously expanded by present policies and that a draft as an alternative is politically unacceptable. Its solution: “There is no way around an expanded force and there is no way, therefore, around vastly increased pay and benefits for the troops.”

A trial balloon for an expanded force may have also been floated in a long article on Iraq strategy by Michael Gordon in the Oct. 19 New York Times. In his piece, “many military officers and civilian officials” blamed the problems so far in Iraq on a tactical miscalculation: the failure to have sent enough troops. One suggestion from military advisors was that the United States should match the troop-to-population ratios that saw the U.S. succeed in occupying Bosnia and Kosovo.

An equivalent ratio in Iraq would mean something between 360,000 and 480,000 troops. This would be in line with the “several hundred thousand” that in 2002 Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army’s chief of staff, testified would be needed –- a figure that deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz derided as “wildly off the mark.”

Many news stories by the Times’ Gordon and his frequent coauthor Judith Miller have uncritically presented the current mindset of the pro-war clique in the Pentagon. A now-notorious story he co-wrote with Miller that ran on Sept. 8, 2002, promoted the claim, later refuted, that aluminum tubing observed in Iraq was “intended for a nuclear weapons program.” It failed to acknowledge that this allegation was (as the Times admitted two years later) the subject of “bureaucratic infighting … so widely known that even the Australian government was aware of it.” The story provided the centerpiece for Dick Cheney and others’ erroneous case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Whether the initial deployment of a much larger U.S. force would have prevented the Iraqi insurgency from becoming so entrenched is debatable. But it should be noted that Gordon’s discussion of successful troop levels in Bosnia and Kosovo fails, as do the military planners he cites, to make an elementary distinction. In both Bosnia and Kosovo, U.S. troops were welcomed by the majority of the local population, against a hated Serb minority who were seen as foreign oppressors. In Iraq, on the other hand, the only groups actively desiring a U.S. invasion were the unrepresentative exiles of the Iraqi National Congress, along with the non-Arab Kurdish minority in the north.

It was not the number of U.S. troops that made the difference, it was acceptance by the people. U.S. officials assumed that the Iraqi people were so desperate to be rid of Saddam that they would welcome American troops as liberators. There was perhaps a brief period of time when that could have been true, but if it ever existed it is gone. And it is unlikely that the U.S. Army as we know it was capable of doing the job, when its political action officers were mostly reservists with only one weekend of special training.

Meanwhile the air strikes continue, in Fallujah and elsewhere. (According to Knight Ridder 3,487 Iraqi civilians were killed in U.S. attacks between April 5 and Sept. 19, more than twice the number killed by insurgents.) The fallacious assumption is that one can kill off a resistance by using tactics which cause that resistance to grow. This might have been possible in past centuries, when brutal tactics could be covered by a shroud of secrecy, but is now highly unlikely in a world of mass communications and growing public opinion.

Why does America persist in a tactic that is doomed to fail? In the short run, of course, it is because January’s elections in Iraq cannot meaningfully take place if parts of the country are not under central Iraqi control. But this does not answer the question why America initiated an offensive occupation that to outsiders seemed certain to arrive at just this dilemma.

To understand this, I believe we must examine that other specter, the inner momentum to overstretch, that has escalated previous U.S. military offensives, particularly in Vietnam.

Recent history has shown that an army can occupy a foreign country without alienating it. Despite occasional tensions, U.S. troops have been able to stay without major crises for over 50 years in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Sentiment in these three countries is still more pro-American than in France, where U.S. troops are not stationed at all.

Troops can even fight in a foreign land and be popular, if it is clear that they are expelling foreign occupiers rather than becoming invasive occupiers themselves. This was the U.S. experience in Kosovo and Bosnia, just as in 1944 the Americans were welcomed in France, and the Russians at least tolerated in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. (Western propaganda notwithstanding, the Russian presence in those countries did not become doomed until after the disastrous oppressions of Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968.)

Even the American experience in Vietnam can be divided into two phases. Before Americans began a heightened offensive campaign in 1964-65, American troops, admittedly still relatively few in number, were generally tolerated by most South Vietnamese. They were indeed welcomed by some, including the large Catholic minority.

But the U.S. Army’s search-and-destroy tactics (of the type repeated this year at Fallujah) soon guaranteed that the U.S. would be fighting a war it could not win. As Daniel Ellsberg reports in “Secrets,” there was no shortage of American observers who knew this. He and other Americans in Vietnam felt uncomfortably like the British redcoats sent to quell the American Revolution.

Compare the situation in Thailand, where Americans had been active since about 1950, and U.S. combat troops had been introduced in 1962. The U.S. troops were concentrated in the northeast (Isan) territory, where there was an active pro-communist resistance and the allegiance of most people to Bangkok was far from secure. By 1965 the U.S. troops (mostly Air Force) were active combatants, supporting heavy anti-civilian bombing campaigns in northern Laos, along the Ho Chi Minh trail, and occasionally inside North Vietnam.

But wisely, U.S. troops were never committed to the counterinsurgency campaign inside Thailand itself. As a result anti-Americanism never became widespread, even though the CIA had helped to install a series of oppressive and uncharacteristically violent military dictators in Bangkok. Soon after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Thailand in 1976, the era of military dictatorships and violence came to an end.

Today the Thai people and rulers alike are resolutely pro-American. Thailand at last has a civilian democratic government. The pro-communist insurrection in the northeast has ended. But these results were not and could not have been achieved until after the U.S. troops withdrew.

Ironically America was the victim of its own early successes in containing communism and stabilizing Thailand, in part by developing a Thai counterinsurgency force, PARU. This led America, step by successful step, into the increasing follies of using PARU in rollback campaigns, in Laos and Vietnam. This pattern of momentum to overstretch from success has since been repeated, most recently in Afghanistan (1980, 1984, 2001) and Iraq (1991, 2003).

Mediocre minds often learn bad lessons from military success. Though the examples of Hitler and Napoleon leap to mind, a more recent example is neocon Max Boot’s cheery assertion in 2002 that “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs.” (The English, for the record, totally failed to administer Afghanistan.)

Such untroubled thinking inspired the Bush White House, also in 2002, after Afghanistan but before Iraq. According to Ron Suskind, who related the conversation in the New York Times Magazine, a senior Bush advisor told him then that people like Suskind were ”in what we call the reality-based community.” The advisor defined it as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he said. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too.”

Those “other new realities,” according to other Bush advisors, would include not just Iraq, but Syria, Iran and possibly North Korea.

Defeat can be an even more powerful motive for overstretch. “The specter of Vietnam” (meaning the embarrassment of a forced withdrawal) obsessed U.S. strategic and military minds after 1975. It clearly was a motive in the graduated crescendo of U.S. interventions that began with Grenada and Panama and climaxed with the Gulf War of 1991. (And of course George H.W. Bush’s premature announcement that “the specter of Vietnam has been buried forever.”)

America’s wars since 1950 can all be seen in the light of this recurring paradigm. Time after time they began as limited interventions in the name of containment, and these goals were achieved. But time after time, in Southeast Asia, in Central Asia and most recently in Iraq, the mobilizations for the limited goal of containment (the Gulf War in 1991) have unleashed internal U.S. forces that have carried America into unwinnable offensive occupations of rollback (Iraq in 2003).

The message is clear, even if one does not often hear it from geostrategists and military historians. American interventions have been successful when limited in their goals: containment, support of the local populations, and maintenance of international order. But these very successes have also led to disasters, when, time after time, the momentum of war has propelled American strategy beyond those limits.

The example of Korea in 1950 most easily illustrates the paradigm. American-led troops quickly expelled the invaders from South Korea, but then suffered heavy losses after they moved north and became invaders themselves. The same can be said of the North Koreans in South Korea: Indeed a key event in creating two countries out of one was the war itself, leading most people to identify with their local army and regard the other as invasive oppressors.

In the end, after many casualties and much loss of civilian life, America could point to the success of an independent and now prosperous South Korea. But that success could have been achieved, and had already been achieved, before the folly of crossing the 38th parallel north.

One can make a similar observation about America’s proxy war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The campaign to expel Russians from Afghanistan was successful, but its very success led to an expansion of U.S. goals beyond Afghanistan’s borders. America made a secret decision in 1984 to train foreign Islamist troops to cross the Amu Darya north, for the sake of separating the Muslim peoples of Central Asia from the Soviet Union. This rollback campaign was also successful, but in a way inimical to the United States.

For the U.S. decision to train Muslim foreigners in offensive terrorism outside Afghanistan’s borders was a key factor in the emergence of the al-Qaida menace that we (as well as the Russians) face today. The U.S. is now paying dearly for its 1980s excesses in Afghanistan, which our intelligence experts persist in calling the “most successful covert action program in American history.”

This pattern of historic momentum toward overstretch underlies all of the world’s recent offensive occupations, both foreign and even domestic. Russia’s efforts in Chechnya today date back to Czar Nicholas’ order in 1829 to his commander in chief in the Caucasus, I.F. Paskevich: “Thus, having completed one glorious campaign [against Turkey], you are to launch another one, … to pacify the mountainous nations once and for all.” So began the failed military efforts, described vividly by Tolstoy, that are still failing today.

The ill-fated Indonesian campaign to subdue Timor Leste was similarly fuelled by misleading momentum. As Indonesian officers told a Catholic missionary there in 1981, “We did the same thing [that is, terrorize the population] in Java, in Borneo, in the Celebes, … and it worked.”

Perhaps the most relevant example of internal momentum leading to overstretch is the now 37-year-old Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Born of the euphoria of the lightning-quick 1967 war, the occupation has become a wound that will not heal.

In general, nations have been able to send troops overseas and achieve their objectives when the objectives are both limited and locally supported. But for almost half a century neither America nor any other country has been able to win what was clearly a major offensive occupation in a hostile foreign land.

(The last successes were won by the British, against the Chinese in Malaya, 1948-1957, and against the Mau Mau in Kenya, 1952-1956. Both campaigns were against well-defined ethnic minorities in limited areas. Meanwhile the French failed spectacularly to maintain their former colonial dominance even in Algeria, which had been governed as part of metropolitan France.)

This simple truth — that an offensive occupation of an unwilling foreign nation is now unwinnable — can rightly be seen as a subversive one. For it is at odds with assumptions underlying the Bush national security doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance over the rest of the world. Indeed it calls into question why America has 725 military bases scattered over the world, down from a Cold War peak of 1,700 in about 100 countries.

To to understand the case for withdrawal, we need to remember that withdrawal from Vietnam was the key to the ultimate U.S. success in Southeast Asia. The hot Vietnam War that only began in 1965 was a late and unnecessary stage of a U.S. Southeast Asian deployment that began in Thailand in the early 1950s and continued incrementally but continuously thereafter, into Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. It passed from being a campaign of containment to a doomed campaign of rollback, when America began a campaign to reverse the neutralism decreed for Indochina by the Geneva Agreements of 1954.

This U.S. war in Southeast Asia was largely successful in its primary strategic goals, even though it failed in the secondary goal of “saving” Indochina. It succeeded above all in restricting communist governments to Indochina, whereas in 1950 there were serious fears that communism might spread through Southeast Asia. (The “domino theory,” though irrelevant by 1965, had been a legitimate concern in the early 1950s.)

The U.S. succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia for Western capitalism, rather than Chinese communism. And it succeeded in securing and protecting large tracts of the South China Sea for offshore exploration and development by Western oil companies. Those successes, along with parallel and related successes in Japan, were important if not vital in presenting a contemporary vision of capitalism that is global rather than Eurocentric.

In retrospect we can see that it was precisely the early U.S. successes in Thailand that misled America into an unwinnable hot war. One can debate at what point the U.S. should have been willing to rest on its limited defensive achievements. I would personally put the optimum checkpoint at 1954. The U.S. could, I believe, have achieved all that it ultimately did achieve in Southeast Asia, if it had decided to accept the 1954 Geneva Agreements for a political resolution in Indochina.

That the United States did not do so must be attributed chiefly to the paranoia of the Cold War. American officials saw insurgencies in Vietnam and even Laos as part of a global game plan being masterminded in the Kremlin. Today even the imperialist hawk Niall Ferguson can admit, in “Colossus,” that it was a “tragic error” to have seen North Vietnam “as a mere instrument of world communism.” But it is just as paranoid, and just as tragic, to see the predictable nationalist resistance to our troops in Iraq as part of a global Islamist conspiracy. There is less excuse for this latest folly: America knows far more about Iraq in 2004 than it did about Indochina a half century earlier.

The important point is that whereas a limited strategy of containment succeeded in achieving America’s strategic goals, an unnecessary hot war led only to a defeat still bitterly remembered. And the U.S. displacement of a neutralist government in Cambodia led to the brief dominance there of the Khmer Rouge, one of the most infamous by-products of America’s propensity to enlarge its wars. Our excesses helped produce killers in Southeast Asia then, as they are doing in Central Asia today.

Above all the eventual happy outcome of the war in Southeast Asia must be seen as a success for America, not as a victory. It was far more a product of the many smaller things America let happen, than of the bigger things, some of them disastrous, that America made happen. Paradoxically this success could only be fully realized after the U.S. withdrew its troops, with which it had been seeking vainly to impose other unworkable outcomes. America’s success came from its finally permitting Southeast Asians do things democratically for themselves.

Here we see the complex analogy with Iraq, and the only reasonable road ahead. The wisdom of the elder Bush in withdrawing after the Gulf War in 1991, produced, even within his own administration, forces frustrated by this acceptance of limited victory. Intoxicated by victory, they wished instead to impose a more forceful U.S. presence upon Iraq and the Middle East.

Both the moderates and the hawks of the Bush I administration were again represented in the administration of Bush II. But the moderates who had prevailed in 1991, notably Colin Powell, were now conspicuously overshadowed by the neocon hawks who then had lost, notably Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. The scores to be settled were not against external enemies alone.

For a decade after the elder Bush’s defeat in 1992, neocons had been calling for a reversal of his self-imposed limits on the containment of Iraq. Success in the Gulf War, as much as earlier defeat in Vietnam, fueled their distaste for any limitations on the scope and exercise of American power.

Once in power, they were not shy about advertising their ambitions. In February 2003 Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would “deal with” Iran, Syria and North Korea. A month later Jeffrey Bell of the Weekly Standard revealed that the administration was preparing for a “world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism … a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future.”

It is time for Americans to go back to a saner Middle East policy that once again rejects impossible rollback ambitions in Iraq and the rest of the region. We need above all a policy that will help the Middle East to resolve its own problems, rather than seek to impose a solution. There will always be the fear that these solutions could work against the United States. But the example of Southeast Asia suggests the opposite: that the Middle East will choose what is best for it, and this will work to America’s favor.

We need more laissez-faire abroad politically. This will include cutting back on state efforts to impose laissez-faire economically. It will be relatively easier to work for a defense of U.S. strategic interests, including assured access to the oil of the region, without the fantasies of maintaining permanent U.S. bases there, to say nothing of dictating the cultural and political future of a much older civilization.

But first, it is time for America to realize not only that its continued military presence in Iraq serves no purpose, but also that it is a source of danger for America, the region and the world.

There have been numerous withdrawals by former imperial powers in the last half century. Of all these only one, the overly delayed Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe, failed to strengthen the global position of the great power in question. This means that there is more than one available model for the U.S. to emulate in Iraq.

William Pfaff, of the International Herald Tribune, has proposed the option of negotiated unilateral withdrawal. He points out that when Charles de Gaulle negotiated independence for Algeria in 1958, his courageous act “did not leave France revealed as ‘a pitiful, helpless giant’ (as Nixon said would be the case if the United States left Vietnam). It strengthened France, freeing it to deal with real issues of political and economic reform.” (Although Pfaff did not mention this, it also enabled French oil companies to participate in the peaceful development of Algeria’s oil and gas resources.)

Pfaff reports that, according to the available polls, 98 percent of the Iraqis want the Americans to leave. Meanwhile a poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations has shown that more than two-thirds of both the U.S. public and U.S. leaders agree that the United States should withdraw from Iraq if a clear majority of Iraqi people want it to do so.

Nevertheless, as was the case with Vietnam 30 years ago, both of our political parties have failed to respond to this groundswell of public opinion. Although the Democratic challenger may have felt it necessary to stake out a more hawkish position in the debates than he actually holds, Kerry seemed to categorically rule out a withdrawal: “Now that we’re there, we have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq … Nobody’s talking about leaving … We’re talking about winning and getting the job done right.”

At the same time, Kerry has distinguished himself from Bush in two important ways. He has said that he would make it clear that the U.S. has no interest in permanent bases in Iraq, or in controlling Iraqi oil. He has said also that we must “internationalize [the U.S.] presence and de-Americanize what is perceived as an occupation.” He believes that then it will be possible to begin to withdraw U.S. troops in six months and get them all out in four years.

Kerry’s proposal to keep prosecuting the war aggressively, while training Iraqis and bringing home U.S. troops, is distressingly similar to Nixon’s solution of “Peace with Honor” for Vietnam. Prominent Canadian commentator Richard Gwyn has retorted that this trying to have it both ways “is the worst option of all … During the Vietnam War, public opinion turned against the conflict once Americans realized they were sacrificing their lives in a futile mission.” In addition, it is clear that most nations will only contemplate a security role in Iraq that has nothing to do with the Typhoid Mary of a protracted U.S. presence.

However, Kerry’s promise to “internationalize” suggests a range of other options for withdrawal: by handing over the future of the country to multilateral supervision or the United Nations. In 1954 the French accepted the multilateral Geneva Conference as a way to withdraw their troops successfully from Indochina. This too facilitated an ongoing French economic presence for another two decades: the French did not finally lose their rubber plantations in Cambodia until after the United States destroyed that country.

A U.N. presence would clearly require new countries to enforce it. Newsday reported on Oct. 18 that “President George W. Bush rebuffed a plan last month for a Muslim peacekeeping force that would have helped the United Nations organize elections in Iraq, according to Saudi and Iraqi officials.” Initially, the Saudis pressed to create a full-fledged peacekeeping force, possibly made up of several thousand Muslim troops. But the Bush administration objected because the special force would have been controlled by the U.N. instead of by the United States.

If Kerry is sincere in being ready to renounce U.S. bases and U.S. interests in Iraq, the multinational option may still be a live one. It is true that U.N. forces have been less than brilliant as peace-keepers, but assuredly they would do less to aggravate the problem than the current U.S. presence.

It is easy to list the risks of a weak multinational peace-keeping force. There could be civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The country could split into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish territories, potentially destabilizing neighbors like Turkey. Or Iraq, beset by tribal conflicts, could become a failed state like Afghanistan (another beneficiary of U.S. liberation).

One risk often cited, that Iraq would become a new haven for terrorists, is unlikely. Most non-U.S. observers see the alleged influence of al-Zarqawi and foreign terrorists in Iraq as vastly inflated by Washington for propaganda purposes. Just as it is the U.S. presence that has made Iraq a honeypot for foreign terrorists, so the best plan to disperse them is for the U.S. itself to go away. The once-held fantasy of attracting terrorists to destroy them is now a nightmare, because of the planners’ failure – once again — to factor in Iraqi public opinion.

In short, staying the present course does not look preferable to what might happen after U.S. withdrawal. As Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post, we now “all have to face the prospect that Iraq will end up a mess no matter what. The administration’s own national intelligence estimate raises the possibility that civil war may erupt by the end of next year.”

He and other Americans, both liberal and conservative, from Pfaff to Robert Novak, have begun to contemplate withdrawal as the only solution for Iraq. They tend to do so from a sense that the game is over and America’s original hopes for a better society there are no longer relevant.

I do not know the Middle East, but the example of Southeast Asia makes me somewhat more optimistic. I believe that a short American intervention, followed by swift withdrawal, could still result in an improved situation, even a gradual evolution toward more open and democratic societies in the region.

But for this to happen unilateralist hopes for an enduring or even short-term American presence must be clearly renounced. Moderate politics can only begin to prevail in Iraq and neighboring countries after we put fears of the withdrawal “specter” behind us and get our armies out of Iraq. This will not even mean abandoning the Middle East, where small states like Qatar are still eager to have a protective U.S. presence.

Meanwhile the specter of escalation grows steadily more frightening. As Colin Powell acknowledged in September, “we have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world” since the war began, and the insurgency in Iraq itself is “getting worse.” This rise in Islamist terrorism is as dangerous for Israel as it is for the United States. In the words of a report from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, “Iraq has now become a convenient arena for jihad, which has helped Al Qaeda to recover from the setback it suffered as a result of the war in Afghanistan.” A report Tuesday from the head of Australian intelligence reached the same conclusion.

Back in 2003 Gen. William Odom, former head of the U.S. National Security Agency, accurately predicted, “Right now, the course we’re on, we’re achieving Bin Laden’s ends.”

Source: Antiwar.com

By Peter Dale Scott

WAXAA DHAMAAN LA OGEYSIINAYAA DADWEYNAHA SHARAFTA MUDAN EE SOOMALIYEED IN WEBSITE CUSUB UU KU SOO BIIRAY WEBSITE YADA LAGA LEEYAHAY GOBOLADDA AWDAL IYO SELEL, SOMALILAND.WEBSITE KA CIWAANKIISU WAA mysomaliland.com WAXAAD HALKAA KA HELI DOONTAAN WARAR, DIIN, WACYIGELIN,BARAARUJIN,RUN SHEEGID ,BEENTA FASHILID, IYO WAXYAALO KALE OO XIISO LEH…Visit Today mysomaliland.com

It was 20 years when Zinewi came to power and his EPRDF forces marched into Addis Ababa and ousting a vicious dictator, Mengistu Haile Maryam. At the same time Isias Afwergus of Eritrea was marching into Asmara, and the SNM were marching into Somaliland ousting another bad dictator Siyad Barre. Clearly both Zinewi and the SNM have transformed and led their two countries Ethiopia and Somaliland in the right direction, while Afwergus is clearly leading Eritrea to the wrong direction. My real focus here today is Zinewi whom I will briefly compare with his compatriot Afwergus whose is a paranoid, schizophrenics dictator, has stifled all kinds of dissent, never accepted political parties, and picked wars with all his neighbors. Afwergus changed Eritrea into an absolute dictatorship.  Zinewi though not your typical democrat is clearly putting Ethiopia into a route of development, improvement of infra-structure, building clinics, hospitals, and resolving political problems through peaceful conflict resolution.. Clearly these days he is slowly earning the respect, of Ethiopians and many others including many people of Somali decent in Killin 5, Somaliland, Djibouti and other places. His accommodation and co-opting or having a kind of  peace with the marginal tribal terrorists, the ONLF was a great step in the right direction towards peace. The small terrorist group accepted the peace deal because they were defeated and desperate. They were a bunch of defeated criminal terrorists preying on civilians for so long, and most of them were remnants of Siyad Barre. Ethiopia along with the Republic of Somaliland may lead the way in the Horn of Africa for promoting peace, and development. We also strongly urge Ethiopia to take the lead in recognizing the People’s Democratic Republic of Somaliland (PDRS). For Ethiopia doing that will open the way for many other countries to recognize Somaliland. The people of Somaliland with or without recognition are finding their place under the sun. They recently elected  a president in a free and fair election. Somaliland is a shinning  city in a hill. Somaliland became an unlikely model for Africa and the Middle East, too unfortunate regions laden with so many vicious dictators. 

Saylicpress Editorial

Somaliland is sending a clear message to the world, that they are no longer asking for their recognition, but in stead they are demanding it. Somaliland believes they have reached a threshold where the world has no choice but to recognize them.

The country has survived economic, political and diplomatic sanctions imposed on them by African and Arab dictators, who are so afraid of Somaliland’s democracy. These countries were led by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the so-called IGAD dictatorships. The country has survived all those illegal, mean and inhuman treatments imposed on them by simply taking care of their business, and refusing to comply with the old post colonial policies engineered by the former colonial powers and their friends.

They believe they have earned their recognition and are over qualified for it. They are also clarifying for the world there is nobody who can dictate for the people of Somaliland. Nobody helped them in their struggle and so some of the world are not giving them the attention they deserve from the world. They believe they have done everything right. Somaliland has earned everything they have and there is nobody who has any stake in it. Somaliland needs to pursue a policy of civil disobedience as a means to seek its over due and well deserved recognition. Somaliland needs to put a condition of its cooperation with other countries to its recognition, They also need to force the international organizations, and especially UN agencies operating in Somaliland to respect Somaliland constitution, sovereignty, and independence. Somaliland needs not to give the license to operate in Somaliland to those organizations who refuse to respect its sovereignty. By and large these organization are not giving a lot to Somaliland. Somaliland has survived and will survive without them. Somaliland recognition lies in Somaliland. The former government tried its best for Somaliland recognition but they were pursuing Somaliland recognition from the wrong places and they were using the wrong tactics. Tactic similar to Gandhi’s tactics of civil disobedience will help Somaliland reach its ultimate goal, which is a full diplomatic recognition. Somaliland also needs to put pressure on the delegations coming to the country to push their countries recognize Somaliland. Somaliland president Ahmed Mohamed Mohammud should not meet these delegations, instead low level foreign affairs officers need to meet these delegations. Moreover, Somaliland media must be allowed to ask these delegations tough questions regarding Somaliland recognition.
Saylicipress: Staff Writer

He called his rally restoring honor rally.

From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck spoke in front thousands of people from all over the country.

He said the rally is non political but that may not be the case. Apparently he did not organized this massive rally without  purpose. Several prominent members of the newly formed tea party movement spoke in the event. Sara Palin the 2008 vice-presidential candidate in the Republican party also delivered a speech. On the other side of the city on the grounds of the national mall civil rights leaders led by reverent Al-Sharpton are conducting a rally, in protest of Glen beck’s show at the Mall, accusing him of distorting Dr. King’s legacy. The rally organizers had a permit for 300,000, but nobody can accurately estimate the real size of Glen beck’s rally. The National Park Service who used to estimate rally crowds have stopped counting rallies in 1997, after they were accused of under counting 1995 Million Man March.

Here are excerpts from Beck’s speech: “For too long, this country has wandered in darkness,” said Beck, a Fox News host. He said it is time to “concentrate on the good things in America, the things we have accomplished and the things we can do tomorrow.” “Faith is in short supply,” Beck said. “To restore America, we must restore ourselves.” Organizers said their aim was to honor military personnel and others “who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s delegate to Congress, said she was at n  King’s march on Washington, which she said effected change and ended segregation in all public places. “Glenn Beck’s march will change nothing. But you can’t blame Glenn Beck for his March-on-Washington envy,” she said. Many in the crowd watched the rally from giant television screens hoisted on the edges of the Mall. You can also see vendors selling merchandize ranging from American flags, hot dogs, soft drinks and many other types of consumer goods.

Many civil rights leaders begged to differ with Glen Back, that his rally is non political, they believe it is a politically loaded rally destined to discredit Dr. martin Luther King’ 1963 speech in front of the Lincoln memorial. Many people think this rally is a protest against the people of color in general and president Obama in particular.  They believe some white people have became so uncomfortable that president Obama is the of the United States. They have the impression that Glen Beck’s rally is motivated by president Obama’s presidency.

Saylicipress staff writer: Washington D.C

I can see jaws dropping with bewilderment, devoted readers unbelievably double checking the source, and some of those already besotted with cynicism against the loyalty of clans on the fringes of Somaliland jumping to conclusion as soon as they see the title without reading any further and saying with a great sense of satisfaction: “Hey, gotcha? We knew all along that he was a unionist in disguise?” Likewise, I can see also unionist “Somalilanders” getting ecstatic about my rebellious approach.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I would like to point out that Somaliland has chosen democracy as its system of government. And democracy entails equality and freedom for all citizens. Under the tree of freedom come its many branches such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. Under the umbrella of this system of democracy and freedom comes also one’s right for dissent among many other rights. Any tax paying citizen should have the right to challenge the political system and be able to express his/her political opinion in a peaceful way. Democracy is not only about conformity, or herd mentality, or even about seeing only different shades of the existing system; but it is also about calling for dismantling the existing system and taking the nation’s destiny to a completely different direction if need be. It is therefore the right of every citizen to demand and promote the political system he/she sees as suitable for the country.

If the Kulmiye government opens the gate for the creation of many political parties as the party’s leadership promised during the election campaign, I can envisage many parties carrying different ideologies and diverse political orientations coming to the political scene. Other than the plethora of clan-based parties that will choke the party pipeline, one can anticipate the arrival of some ideology- based parties such an Islamic party, a secular party, a liberal party, a social-democratic party and most probably a communist party. With the onset of such unfettered democracy I don’t see why it should still be a taboo to create a unionist party, demanding Somaliland’s reunification with Somalia.

In Somaliland today there is a strange and unfounded fear of anyone expressing an opinion for union. Strange because Somaliland has adopted democracy as a political system and democracy is indivisible. You cannot deny citizens to demand their democratic rights to hold and express opposing views; and unfounded because the people of Somaliland have made their choice to abandon the union and reclaim their sovereignty with their own free will. Therefore to punish and criminalize people for calling or publicly advocating for the Somali union is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Somaliland. If anything, it shows insecurity and paranoia about the sustainability of the Somaliland project.

The absurdity is that any Somali from anywhere in the world, particularly Somalis from Ethiopia, Djibitouti, Kenya and even Somalia can enter, stay and do business in Somaliland, but Somalilanders who happened to have participated in the politics of Somalia cannot attend even the burial of their own relatives in Hargeisa, Borama, Buroa or any other place in Somaliland. Somalis who hold high political posts in Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti are welcomed in Somaliland even though they uphold their respective governments’ official position of rejecting the recognition of Somaliland, but Somalis who hail from Somaliland by birth are treated as criminals and thrown into prison if they step on the soil of their homeland and are not even allowed to visit their ailing mothers. Their only crime is that they oppose the secession of Somaliland. This makes Somaliland democracy and freedom a cruel joke, at least to the families of the victims of such an absurd reality.

And finally, here is the beef. Yes, I am a firm believer in Somaliland’s sovereignty and independence and will remain a staunch advocate for its recognition. The people of Somaliland underwent great suffering and yet still found the courage and willpower to invest a priceless amount of energy, time and wisdom in creating a country from scratch and establishing such an admirable model of democracy in Africa. And despite its lack of recognition, I want to see Somaliland determined to uphold its constitutional democracy and hopefully one day be a guiding light for African countries as well as others professing democracy yet denying their citizens basic rights. Obviously, neither I nor any sound human being would like to see Somaliland’s achievements go up in flames for someone’s fantasyland dreams, but I also strongly believe that Somaliland has attained a high degree of political maturity to democratically and peacefully challenge and defeat anyone that confronts its legal rights at the ballot box. Hence, I resent seeing my beautiful Somaliland that stands on unshakeable democratic pillars, behaving like a banana republic by incarcerating and denying its citizens the exercise of their political rights. And that includes allowing the minority unionist individuals to raise their voice and form their own party. We all know that such dissenters do not stand a chance of winning any votes, but giving them a political platform may contribute to deflating their argument and saving their lives from dying in the hellfire of Mogadishu.

Bashir Goth

Email: bsogoth@yahoo.com

Badhasaabka gobolka Awdal Maxamed Daahir Cabdalle ayaa sheegay in labadan xildhibaan oo magacyadooda la kala yidhaahdo Sitiin Xuseen iyo Xildhibaan Wehel oo labadooduba hore uga tirsanaan jiray Saraakiisha Wasaaradda Maaliyadda Somaliland, isla markaana, shirkii Madaxweyne Sheekh Shariif lagu soo doortay kaga qaybgalay dalka Jabuuti, halkaas oo ay kaga mid noqdeen Xildhibaannada Baarlamanka Soomaaliya, ayaanay iyaga Boolisku ku guulaysan inay gacanta ku dhigaan.

Xildhibaanada la xidhay ee ka kirsan Baarlamanka dawladda ku meel-gaadhka ahee Somalilaya, ayaa jebiyey sharci ay 2008-dii Golayaasha Baarlamaanka Somaliland ansixiyeen, kaas oo dhigaya ciddii Somaliland u dhalatay shay ee xil ka qabta Soomaaliya ama ka qaybgala shirar dawlad Soomaaliyeed lagu dhisayo in ciqaab la marinayo, isla maraana ina aanu dalka ku soo noqon karin illaa uu cafis soo dalbado, kana tanaasulo mawqifka uu aamminsan yahay.

Si toos ah, ayuu sharcigaasi u qabanayaa Xildhibaanka la xidhay oo meel kaga dhacay qarranimadii Somaliland, isla markaana dawlada Somaliland ay u taala waxa ay ka yeelayso xildhibaankaas xidhan,

waxaanu hadalkiisii ku soo gabagabeeyay in dhawaan maxkamad la soo hortaagi doono, laguna qaadi doono, danbi ay ka galeen qaranka , waxa uuna sheegay in cid walba oo danbi ka gashay qaranka Somaliland, la hor keeni doono cadaalada iyo sharciga ka yaala somaliland.

Tani waxa ay noqonaysaa, talaabadii ugu horeysay ee uu qaado Mas’uulka ugu sareeyo xukuumada Siilaanyo tan iyo intii xilka lagu wareejiyay, waxa ayna dadwaynuhu is waydiinayaan, waxaa looga fadhiyaa arimo ka waawayn kuwan uu iminka gacanta ku hayo, sida dhinacyada horumarka. Waxa kale oo uu Guddoomiyaha Gobolka Awdal ka Hadley kormeer dhawaan uu ku tagay deegaano ka tirsan degmada Lughaya, oo ay ka da’een roobab xoogan oo khasaare geystey.

Badhasaabku waxa uu sheegay in uu ku soo arkay deegaanadaa Xaalad naxdin leh, waxa uuna sheegay in uu ishiisa ku soo arkay, Guryo badan iyo Dugsiyo wax lagu barto, oo gabi ahaantood roobabkaasi wax yeelo xoog badan ay u gaysteen, waxa kale oo uu sheegay in xoolihii iyagna ay roobabkan aawadood noqdeen kuwa ku dhaw roobka isdaba jooga ah ee da’aya,ina ay ku laadaan,taas oo laga cabsi qabo in ay mar labaad caydhoobaan.

Dhinaca kale waxa uu sheegay in dugsiyadii ay jiingadihii ay ka qaaday roobabkii da’ay dabaylo ay wateen, ardaydii wax ku dhigan jirtayna, ayna iminka ku dhigan karin maxaa yeelay, roobabka da’aya iyo dabaylaha dhacaya aawadood, taas oo ay dusha ka qaawan yihiin.

ugu danbyn waxa uu baaq u diray, Dawalada uu isagu u matalo gobolka, Hay’adaha caalamiga ah ee ka hawl gala somaliland, iyo qurba jooga ka soo jeeda goboladan Awdal/Salal, in ay kaalin mug leh ka qaataan, u taakulaynta iyo ugargaarida dadkii ay ka soo gaadheen dhibaatadan, rabaaniga ah.waxa kale oo uu sheegay in loo baahan yahay gargaar degdega, dalka gudihisa iyo dibadiisaba.

Source Haatuf